Chrysler minivan wins approval

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Anecdotal baloney, EVERY car mfgr makes lemons. For every single idjit who can revel us with a Chrysler story I'll just search Google and come up with another horror story for almost ANY other brand.

And K cars were a great little econobox. From Wiki: "The K-cars (Dodge Aries, Plymouth Reliant, Chrysler LeBaron, Dodge 400, and, in Mexico, Dodge Dart) sold very well, selling between 280,000 and 360,000 every year from 1981 to 1988, and edging over 100,000 in their final year, 1989.

The manual transmission provided acceleration of 0-60 mph in 10 seconds, while the automatic was between 13 and 14 seconds, similar to or better than most competitors, while gas mileage was rated by the EPA at 26 mpg city, 41 mpg highway with the manual transmission."

Everybody has a brand they love to bash, but you'll never hear from the many happy owners who drove till the wheels fell off and loved their cars.


I'm on record for saying out of my '84 Firebird LG4, '85 Mustang LX 5.0, and '86 Daytona Turbo Z C/S, I would pick the Daytona again every time. It would hold it's own against the 305 Camarobirds and woe to the 2bbl 302 Mustangs that tried it.

It's all relative.

Yeah, the 2.2 Turbo Chrysler E-Class/Dodge 600 was not so good, but when you compare it to a FWD DeVille HT-4100, it's not so bad either. It's a paragon of reliability compared to the Cadillac 4100.

The Aries K isn't so great, but compared compared to a Tempo? The 2.2 and A413 was every bit as reliable as any 2.3HSC and ATX and you could sit three abreast in the front seat of an Aries. It's tight, but you can do it much better than you could in a Tempo. I've driven 2.5 powered Celebrities and 6000s and to me, the K was as good or better.

The Omni/Horizon has a boatload of defenders. I admit, it's a weird car. The first generation was basically a French car with a German engine assembled in Illinois. Again, it's in comparison. At it's debut. the only real "domestic" competitor to the Omni/Horizon was the Ford Fiesta. The Fiesta was German so you are paying Rabbit/Golf money for a Ford, and it was only a 3 door. You could fold down the seats on the Omni and put a Fiesta in the hatch (obviously that's a massive exaggeration but you get the point) Compared to the Chevette? No wonder so many people like their early Omnirizons.

You put a Mitsubishi 6G72 in a Sundance or Shadow and that is everybit as entertaining as any 2.8 Beretta. Bonus! the Sundance/Shadow has a hatch in case you have to carry something.

So yeah, '80s Chryslers stink. Compared to a Grand Marquis or Caprice, the Aries is terrible. But when compared to the correct domestic competitor, they are all the sudden not so bad anymore. They were quite good and quite competitive.

 

[cmorr]

Originally Posted By: G-MAN
Originally Posted By: itguy08
That's a shocker - Chrysler/Dodge/RAM have always been junk vehicles. They should have died in the 80's.


Let's see, in another thread you said Dell always made garbage and always will. Now Chrysler has always been junk vehicles. I guess the fact that I'm on my 5th Dell computer in 12 years and have had ZERO problems with any of them is just a fluke. Likewise, I'm on my third Chrysler 300 in the last 10 years and they have proven to be reliable, well-built cars with no more problems than any other brand I've owned. Another fluke.

I'll bet you're loads of fun at a party.


Getting ready to replace my wifes 2006 Caravan with a 2012. Only doing it because she wants a newer vehicle (convenience, safety,etc). No trans issues and this will be her third Caravan

The Challenger in my sig was a replacement for my Magnum, the only dealer service was for a minor trans leak (well know and documented, quick fix)

The only transmissions I have had significant issues while under warranty were both Ford products (Escort and a Grand Marquis). Both were replaced in under 50,000 miles. Had no problems with the F150 in my sig and expect with normal maintenance my Grandchildren will inherit it.

 

[SLCraig]

Originally Posted By: Burt
Originally Posted By: SLCraig
Originally Posted By: itguy08
That's a shocker - Chrysler/Dodge/RAM have always been junk vehicles. They should have died in the 80's.


But they were making great cars in the 80's!

Yes those K-cars in all their derivative forms were sweet rides - NOT!

If you don't like turbo Dodges, you don't like turbo Dodges, but they have a cult following and I for one, love them dearly.
What I would give for a mint CSX or Omni GLH...

 

[Vikas]

"Consumer Group"? I am suspecting it is not what people think it is.

 

[dishdude]

I liked the K-cars and all the variants. We had several in the 80's and early 90's and they were basic, but reliable and economical transportation. I think the fuel injected 2.2/2.5 was great, and the 3 speed auto it was bolted up to was solid also. For the time, they were a very good car - obviously you can't compare it to anything today.

Chrysler really was putting out a great product until Diamler got a hold of them. I wonder what could have been if Bob Lutz had taken over as CEO after Iaccoca retired.

 

[fisher83]

You are exactly right! They all make lemons. I can honestly say that I have never really had what I would consider a bad vehicle. I've owned Chevy, Ford, Nissan, Hyundai,Honda,Kia,Dodge, Buick and none of them gave me serious problems. I think that if given proper care just about any car lasts a long time these days. I think that Chrysler frequently gets an undeserved bad rap. Are they the best cars on the road... probably not, but I believe they are a good value for the money. I highly doubt people would keep going back and buying Chrysler vans if their last one was junk.

 

[Indydriver]

I read this thread prepared to make a comment about my 25 years of minivan ownership and purchase decision this year but...nevermind.

 

[NHGUY]

Think what you want,but I would take certain Chrysler products over any GM,Ford or import.Call the K cars bad? Well,I guess my 25 year old edition is just a figment of my imagination.I'll put the durability of the 2.2 up against the GM Iron Duke any day.Not to mention the old 2.3 HSC Tempo and 1.6/1.9 CVH Escort.Dont like K cars? Give me all your hand me downs,I will gladly take them,and preserve them for future use.Good luck finding an AMC Concord,Chevy Citation,or Chevette nowadays.Yes,all vehicles have their issues,but with Chrysler I know the trouble spots...and can deal with it.With Chryslers,they seem to have "common" problems among similar extended family members (same platform/engine/trans...etc),with the others anything can go wrong.Your GM pickup could rot a rocker panel,break an inside door handle,lose a cluster,have the tailgate handle bezel fall off...anything.You never know whats going to break next.Chrysler is bashed too much,GM is not bashed enough.

 

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: G-MAN

Let's see, in another thread you said Dell always made garbage and always will. Now Chrysler has always been junk vehicles. I guess the fact that I'm on my 5th Dell computer in 12 years and have had ZERO problems with any of them is just a fluke. Likewise, I'm on my third Chrysler 300 in the last 10 years and they have proven to be reliable, well-built cars with no more problems than any other brand I've owned. Another fluke.

I'll bet you're loads of fun at a party.


Good for you The fact that I've been in IT for a long time and seen the insides of just anout every brand out there means I know "just a little" about Dell's lack of quaity and how junk they are. It's a fact that they don't have good ratings from just about every organization that rates PC satisfaction and reliability. Those are the facts.

The fact that you average 3.33 years per Chrysler product speaks volumes about the lack of quality of their product. A quality car should not be shot in 3.33 years. Also the Chrysler stuff is last in JD Powers' durability testing, last in Consumer Reports and generally scores poorly in comparisons. So tell me why they should have been saved twice in the past 20 years? Sounds like they don't know how to buld good stuff.

Sure they have had some good cars. The Slant 6 was good, as was the Ford Inline 6 and the Smallblck Chevy. Hard to kill any of them. The K-cars were not good. Then again all of the cars of the era were not good. But the Chryslers were bad then too. Turbo Dodges were cool and it's cool to read aobut the Turbo Minivan that smokes Corvettes. But it's like the ricers - you can soup up a Civic but at the end of the day it's still an econobox.

 

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog

The Omni/Horizon has a boatload of defenders. I admit, it's a weird car. The first generation was basically a French car with a German engine assembled in Illinois. Again, it's in comparison. At it's debut. the only real "domestic" competitor to the Omni/Horizon was the Ford Fiesta. The Fiesta was German so you are paying Rabbit/Golf money for a Ford, and it was only a 3 door. You could fold down the seats on the Omni and put a Fiesta in the hatch (obviously that's a massive exaggeration but you get the point) Compared to the Chevette? No wonder so many people like their early Omnirizons.


The Omni/Horizon was more of an Escort sized car than a Fiesta. And the Escort was a much better car. I had a friend that had an Omni and it was a quick car but the quality was abysmal. They were not called Bombnis because they were "the bomb" but rather a ticking time bomb. The turbos were cool and easily the best ones out there.

 

[Spazdog]

I think you are talking about the latter Mazda B platform/ 1.9 liter Escorts.

There was no North American Escort when the Omni was introduced.

The first generation Escort was supposed to share a large number of components with it's Euro market Escort but like the Pennsylvania made Volkswagen Rabbits, something happened to the design when it crossed the Atlantic. Something bad. They took the character out of the cars.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: Miller88
Originally Posted By: Boomer
If only I could work up a shred of faith in their automatic trannys, I might consider one. But I have known too many coworkers and friends whose Chrysler products have left them by the side of the road and then hit them with enormous repair bills after warranty. I'll wait for another ten years or so to see how the current crop of transmissions hold up and then maybe....


I agree ... but lets just add their sub par electronics and engine quality to the list!

They make a lot of attractive vehicles! I just wouldn't trust any of them.


Yet, you own one. Hypocrite much?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: Burt
Originally Posted By: SLCraig
Originally Posted By: itguy08
That's a shocker - Chrysler/Dodge/RAM have always been junk vehicles. They should have died in the 80's.


But they were making great cars in the 80's!

Yes those K-cars in all their derivative forms were sweet rides - NOT!


My K-car (actually, it was an L-body) showed taillights to lots of people that thought they had fast cars!

I had one of these...

 

[G-MAN]

Originally Posted By: itguy08
The fact that you average 3.33 years per Chrysler product speaks volumes about the lack of quality of their product. A quality car should not be shot in 3.33 years.


The only thing speaking volumes here is your uninformed bias. I never said my cars were "shot" when I traded them. My 99 300M was still going strong at right at 100,000 miles when I traded in on the 2007 300. No transmission problems, didn't use any oil between changes. Trading the 07 for a 2012 300 was an impulse buy strictly because I fell in love with the new 300s the minute I drove one. As much as I liked the 07, the new 300s are a giant leap forward in fit and finish and comfort. And gas mileage. In two 400 mile round trips, I averaged 34.8 mpg. The absolute best I ever got on my 07 was 27 mpg.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: Burt
Originally Posted By: SLCraig
Originally Posted By: itguy08
That's a shocker - Chrysler/Dodge/RAM have always been junk vehicles. They should have died in the 80's.


But they were making great cars in the 80's!

Yes those K-cars in all their derivative forms were sweet rides - NOT!


My K-car (actually, it was an L-body) showed taillights to lots of people that thought they had fast cars!

I had one of these...

It's hard to believe that my PT Cruiser has some 75 more horsepower than my TurboI Daytona Turbo Z C/S did. That thing felt legitimately quick. I never could quite outrun a Shelby Charger or Omni GLH, just too heavy, but could do quite well against carbureted Camaros and Mustangs

I like my PT. Hard polypropylene dash with weird bionic snakeskin inserts and all. It's coarse, loud, (not as loud as the mufflerless SRT/4 but the factory muffler is pretty much straight through) and can embarrass a lot of cars....while carrying a surprisingly large amount of cargo.

 

[Doog]

Originally Posted By: Boomer
If only I could work up a shred of faith in their automatic trannys, I might consider one. But I have known too many coworkers and friends whose Chrysler products have left them by the side of the road and then hit them with enormous repair bills after warranty. I'll wait for another ten years or so to see how the current crop of transmissions hold up and then maybe....

+1 I had two of them great vans but the trans is the weak link.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: cmorr


The Challenger in my sig was a replacement for my Magnum, the only dealer service was for a minor trans leak (well know and documented, quick fix)


It should be noted that you can order the Mercedes o-rings and fit them yourself in ten minutes. Cost was less than 5 bucks shipped!

And Daimler was a co-developer of the BEST car Chrysler has made in the last decade or more, the 300. NOT fwd, NOT transverse engined, and very well built with ridiculous performance at a killer price.

Absolutely nothing in 05 (when I bought mine) was even remotely comparable, and they still sell like hotcakes!

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
And Daimler was a co-developer of the BEST car Chrysler has made in the last decade or more...


No offense intended toward Chrysler or their fans, but it seems that it took outside help for Chrysler to put out a superb car. Now that they have help from Fiat, the rest of their car lineup is improving significantly.

It seems that Chrysler, like some of its Detroit competition, has long been strong in trucks (to include Jeep). They have had excellent truck powertrains, very good truck reliability for the most part, and I'd say good customer loyalty in the truck market. I know that if I were to buy a truck today, it would 100% be a Dodge Ram...or excuse me...a Ram. I had a '97 Dodge Dakota with the 318 and 44RE that was great. I probably shouldn't have sold it. It had nearly 180,000 miles and, apart from some worn front suspension bushings, drove like it had half the age on it.

We've also owned two minivans. I've moderated a Chrysler minivan forum. I drive a Chrysler minivan nearly every day at work. We've also had a number of Chrysler cars at work. Their home-developed cars, again in my opinion, do not have the same level of durability and "engineering polish" as their trucks have had. The same durability issues persist across platform generations. I'm not saying that other automakers don't share this same attribute, just stating a fact. But I am saying that Chrysler's own trucks don't seem to share this trait. It's as if Chrysler has put more energy and effort into its trucks than in its cars over the years. Given the traditional buying habits of Americans, that's probably a defensible business decision.

But now Chrysler is getting help from outside resources. Daimler in the 2000 era and Fiat now. These outside resources are traditionally strong in cars rather than trucks. Many accuse Daimler of acquiring Chrysler, and then tossing it out some years later, only as a cash-grab. That could be, but I think Chrysler's car programs benefitted significantly. And under new management from Fiat, an entire new focus has been put on Chrysler's patently unrefined interiors, at least in many of their "consumer grade" products like the minivans, Calibers, Sebrings, etc.

I think Chrysler's car program has come a long way, and recognizing where they were with it just a few years ago makes its recent transformation even more impressive.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: cmorr


The Challenger in my sig was a replacement for my Magnum, the only dealer service was for a minor trans leak (well know and documented, quick fix)


It should be noted that you can order the Mercedes o-rings and fit them yourself in ten minutes. Cost was less than 5 bucks shipped!

And Daimler was a co-developer of the BEST car Chrysler has made in the last decade or more, the 300. NOT fwd, NOT transverse engined, and very well built with ridiculous performance at a killer price.

Absolutely nothing in 05 (when I bought mine) was even remotely comparable, and they still sell like hotcakes!


It was (and is) one of the few things the Daimler overlords did well.
I don't give them credit for the 300M and the PT Cruiser. They were both in development prior to Daimler's "Marriage of Equals." I know a 300M is "wrong wheel drive" but it was the closest thing to a Maxima that you could get in a domestic.
In the mid-'90s, the Stratus' driveability was compared to the Accord. Daimler softened it to a pile of goo.
They killed the Neon and rather than replace it with something derived from their own B-chassis, they gave us the heir to the Aztek ugly throne, the Caliber.
I don't know what they did to the Dakota and Durango. Post '04s are significantly uglified to my eyes and they seem problematic.

So credit where credit is due on the Hemi, 300, and current ML based Durango. The rest? Not so much.

 

[G-MAN]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: cmorr


The Challenger in my sig was a replacement for my Magnum, the only dealer service was for a minor trans leak (well know and documented, quick fix)


It should be noted that you can order the Mercedes o-rings and fit them yourself in ten minutes. Cost was less than 5 bucks shipped!

And Daimler was a co-developer of the BEST car Chrysler has made in the last decade or more, the 300. NOT fwd, NOT transverse engined, and very well built with ridiculous performance at a killer price.

Absolutely nothing in 05 (when I bought mine) was even remotely comparable, and they still sell like hotcakes!


It was (and is) one of the few things the Daimler overlords did well.
I don't give them credit for the 300M and the PT Cruiser. They were both in development prior to Daimler's "Marriage of Equals." I know a 300M is "wrong wheel drive" but it was the closest thing to a Maxima that you could get in a domestic.
In the mid-'90s, the Stratus' driveability was compared to the Accord. Daimler softened it to a pile of goo.
They killed the Neon and rather than replace it with something derived from their own B-chassis, they gave us the heir to the Aztek ugly throne, the Caliber.
I don't know what they did to the Dakota and Durango. Post '04s are significantly uglified to my eyes and they seem problematic.

So credit where credit is due on the Hemi, 300, and current ML based Durango. The rest? Not so much.


Let me preface what I'm about to say with this: I am a huge fan of the LX platform that Daimler developed after they took over Chrysler. I think it's one of the best automotive platforms of the 21st century. Now, with that understood, it was the development of this platform that set the Daimler/Chrysler "merger" up for ultimate failure. When Daimler bought Chrysler in 99, the Chrysler designers here already had their own RWD LX platform in development with a scheduled release for the 2002 model year. It was based on the existing 2nd gen LH platform, which itself had been designed to be FWD, RWD, or AWD. Daimler stepped in and completely trashed that program and insisted the LX platform be based on existing Mercedes technology. They started over from scratch designing a Mercedes-based* LX, which set back the introduction of Chrysler's new big sedans by 3 years. This was a completely unnecessary expenditure of huge amounts of capital.

*It was at the time widely reported (and still is to this day) that the new LX platform was derived from the previous generation E Class Benz. This was simply not true. The LX platform shared absolutely no hard points with the W210 platform. The only thing used directly from the W210 was the steering column and the front seat architecture (which is one reason the front seats on these cars seem a bit narrow given the overall width of the vehicle). The rear suspension was Mercedes 5-link used on ALL their RWD sedans, but again, not taken directly from any existing Mercedes platform. The front suspension of the LX was actually based on the design used in the W220 S-Class.